[-empyre-] a definition of gaming subcultures? / playing as performance / games that you can't get out of your newsfeed

[Gabriel Menotti]

Hey Micha!

> I have to say I'm with Simon on this one. I think that to see
> Farmville as punk rock is ridiculous, since it's a huge profit seeking
> corporation, with $500,000 in profit already and a projected worth of
> billions.

I'm not sure about the size of Zynga, but they are certainly very
efficient in their business model. However, I do not see their profit
as amoral per se, in the same way that I don't consider any form of
music as politically critical per se. As Julian said, the analogy
between casual gaming and playing punk rock seems true on the level of
strategies of circulation: both are cheap, adaptable and easy to be
grasped by "the masses."

While with the Sex Pistols this meant a break with the paradigm of its
time's cultural industry, in Farmville it is just the best way to
employ the technical possibilities of social networks - even in terms
of playtesting and prototyping. Zynga seems to incorporate the social
dimension of their services not only as game mechanics and marketing
strategies, but also as a source for agile development.

But, as you said, Minecraft's Notch does so as well. Likewise, his
game seems to be pretty lucrative for a one-man endeavour. So what is
the difference between both?

One answer might be the degree of creative engagement players have
with the gaming system. In that sense, Minecraft really is a wonderful
reference for subcultural possibilities. As a non-player, I'm
mesmerized by the shrines, architectures and automata people build
within it and share elsewhere (mostly in youtube).

However, I feel this is false distinction between it and Farmville -
which, to a certain extent, is even more "sandboxy," and also allow
some pixel-like crafting, which players share with each others in the
appropriate forums. [1] Maybe for us, as critical spectators, there is
a huge aesthetic difference between these two kinds of user-generated
content - as there might be between the sophistication of their game
mechanics? But I wonder if for the players (which are nothing more
than "prosumers" in both cases) one creative exercise is less valid or
enjoyable than the other.

I must say that, for me, the crucial difference between one and the
other is the kind of relation that exists between the gaming system
and its platform of circulation. That implies in to what extent Zynga
depends on Facebook - and, at the same time, to what extent playing
Farmville commits the player to this social network. Minecraft seems
to be much less constrained in that sense: it can be installed in any
server, played offline, etc.

(I wonder if Dave Griffiths is still around to tell us a bit how Naked
on Pluto [2] employs the structure of Facebook and Twitter, and if
there is any particular strategy in this interaction).

Best!
Menotti

[1] http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/social/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=150493
[2] http://pluto.kuri.mu/